• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's discuss the Resurrection of Jesus

Resurrection

  • The Resurrection IS the most likely theory on why Christianity is the biggest religion

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • The Resurrection IS NOT the most likely theory on why Christianity is the biggest religion

    Votes: 15 75.0%

  • Total voters
    20
first of all buddhism is only a philosphipy and islam accpets that Jesus story was true
lol

No, Buddhism is a religion. Westerners often have a distorted picture of it, but in Asia, people worship Buddha, Maitreya, Avalokiteśvara, bodhisattvas, arhants etc the same way Christians worship Jesus, angels and saints. Monks in many nations (like Thailand and Vietnam) are holy, and must be treated with respect. They have temples, they have holidays, they have rituals, the whole 9 yards.

In Islam, Jesus is a human prophet, not a god. They reject the resurrection story and claims that he was divine; some deny he was crucified. Look it up.


Hinduism reflects cultures, there are hundred of different gods and is mostly philopsipical
"Philosophical." And it's the same thing as with Buddhism -- it's a religion, not a philosophy, replete with a pantheon, avatars, rituals, scriptures, temples, holidays and so on.

Sorry not sorry, but your attempt to minimize and misrepresent other religions is not going to fly.
 
Yes i am aware of that

first of all buddhism is only a philosphipy and islam accpets that Jesus story was true

Hinduism reflects cultures, there are hundred of different gods and is mostly philopsipical

whats next?
Doesn't Islam teach Christ was a 'prophet'; not the son of any God?
 
Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?

The OP is flawed, so the choices are also flawed.

Those that wrote about this entire chain of events all the way up to resurrection, not a one of them met Jesus nor did they witness any of this. What are talking about was a series of stories that are neither unique nor really all that well recorded across the Bronze Age.

Christianity did not "spread so rapid" in Rome, Rome spread its control over the region very rapidly right up to its collapse. But during the time of Rome, the further conquered lands were from Rome locals generally speaking had their beliefs as it helped with local control. This was true up and to the point that the Romans decided to go another way and organized "Christianity." Almost 300 years after Jesus died it was the Romans who sought all they could get on Christianity, decided which writings were included and with plenty of others excluded, decided which of the beliefs were to be included with others excluded, made a few edits along the way, and more or less created what you hold up on Sunday as "fact."

Christianity did not spread on it's own merit, the Romans made it official to the point of direct sponsorship as official over other sets of beliefs from the period. Since Rome at one point controlled a great deal of what you call Europe today it makes sense that the concepts are still around even after the fall of Rome. Not because of authenticity of the story but because not long after the fall of Rome humanity was cursed with the Dark Ages, literal devolution in human history, filled to the brim with lunacy and stupidity, and it was dominated by the concepts the Romans gave them in "Christianity."

No one seeing the resurrection as an eyewitness does not mean much to this debate, the story existed long before Jesus anyway, and the concept was adopted to make a point about Jesus. A point that someone else already made, for some other take on God and his Son, with different names for the actors in the story, and for some other religion hundreds of years before.

What I think is we have yet another example of what religion really does, empower people to take something and make up more nonsense about it, just as you have with your OP, assuming originality and cleverness. Neither ends up true.
 
From Wikipedia:

"Several evangelical books and websites claim that Greenleaf was an atheist who set out to disprove the Gospels, but instead the evidence for Jesus' resurrection convinced him to become a Christian. Greenleaf was a devout evangelical Episcopalian, and no evidence exists that he ever doubted the truth of the Gospels."
:rolleyes:

He could've been a pastor.....or the pope, too!


Nothing removed from this fact!



Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics.

This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief.

Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists.


He is distinguished as one who applied the canons of the ancient document rule to establish the authenticity of the gospel accounts, as well as cross-examination principles in assessing the testimony of those who bore witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.


His style of reasoning is reflected in the apologetic works by John Warwick Montgomery, Josh McDowell, and Ross Clifford.

 
Last edited:
why would paul convert to christianity after being against it?

Why would Cassius Clay convert to Islam after not being one?
:rolleyes:

What a silly come-back!

He asked: why would paul convert to christianity after being against it?

Casius Clay? Your response is illogical. They are not comparable.

Paul was not only anti-Christian - he pursued, and persecuted them!
 
why would paul convert to christianity after being against it?


:rolleyes:

What a silly come-back!

He asked: why would paul convert to christianity after being against it?

Casius Clay? Your response is illogical. They are not comparable.

Paul was not only anti-Christian - he pursued, and persecuted them!

So what? He was a Jew, then he became a Christian, just like practically all of the early Christians. For thousands of years, there's been nothing unusual about people of one religion persecuting people of another. That doesn't preclude them from converting.

And of course, that bit about persecuting Christians is what HE said in the parts of the Bible he wrote. Why should anyone believe that?
 
So what? He was a Jew, then he became a Christian, just like practically all of the early Christians. For thousands of years, there's been nothing unusual about people of one religion persecuting people of another. That doesn't preclude them from converting.

And of course, that bit about persecuting Christians is what HE said in the parts of the Bible he wrote. Why should anyone believe that?
Wrong...many scriptures testify to the fact besides Paul's writings...Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, spoke about Paul often...Acts 7,8, 9,10,13,15,16,17,18,19,20. 21, 22, 23,27,28...

As did Peter...

"Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 2 Peter 3:15
 
the facts:

1.Jesus's tomb was empty
2.The disciples were convinced Jesus saw came back after their death, something that must have compelled them to even get martyred for the cause
3. Paul, a sworn enemy of the church, suddenly converted
4. James, the brother of Jesus suddenly became a christian even though they were discrimanted against and there was no reason to
5.Jesus died by Crucifixion.

These facts need an explanation- the best explanation is that the Resurrection is real and no other theory can explain it nor the rise of Christianity

this is how the apologetic argument goes, i just learned about this 3 days ago when i did research on the topic goes and i support it

No no. I asked for evidence. You said evidence.

Stories in a book, that’s 1000’s of years old, written by unknown authors, decades or even a 100 years or more after the events it describes, then endlessly edited and translated into hundreds of different versions doesn’t represent evidence.

Care to try again?
 
The truth can only be known on the spiritual plane not on this material plane......
 
why would paul convert to christianity after being against it?


:rolleyes:

What a silly come-back!

He asked: why would paul convert to christianity after being against it?

Casius Clay? Your response is illogical. They are not comparable.

Paul was not only anti-Christian - he pursued, and persecuted them!

Paul obviously had mental issues and was detached from reality. That explains it.
 
cannablism? thats a far out theory, what is your proof
I have given a link that discusses the possibility. Which is all you have. Proof is not really required here as we are discussing something for which there is zero evidence either way. After all you have no witnesses just a theory. So all I need is present an equally plausible theory.

And cannibalism is a fact. We know it happens and we know from primitive tribes the beliefs they held about cannibalism which would explain a lot of tosca1's questions just as well as does a resurrection. In fact it is even more plausible as cannibalism is something we know happens where as resurrections such as claimed by jesus are apparently only a one off event written in a book full of fantasy stories.
 
He must mean......... no LIVING eyewitnesses!

THINK!

Surely no Christian will say that there were no eyewitnesses to the event when there were the Apostles who wrote about the Resurrection!

Hello? Yooohoooo? If you know anything at all about the Bible, you'd know that the Apostles had witnessed the risen Christ!
You're just showing your ignorance of the Scriptures.

Hahahaha, will we be discussing this now - let alone know about the Resurrection - if Apostles didn't write about it?
You guys are so silly. What you're doing is called, "grabbing at straws!" I bet you're all looking for any typos to latch on! :ROFLMAO:

Really! So your assuming that all those 500 witnesses were dead when they witnessed the event as you think there were no living eye witnesses.
I have a feeling even typical russian might not be too willing accept that idea.


Well of course the apostles would lie about eating his body and instead explain his disappearance by miracle.

And of course they would write about it. They made their living by duping people into believing that crap. Just because they wrote something does not make it true .

You have nothing here to offer but a rather poor attempt to pretend there were hundreds of witnesses to an improbable event of resurrection.
Or on the other hand a group of men decided to eat his body and then tell lies to create the impression a miracle occurred is far more probable.

Again from the link i gave.

As it was mentioned above, the scene of the ‘Last supper’ acquires sense. Its purpose is to persuade Christ’s disciples that they will have to eat the flesh of their teacher and to drink his blood and to convince the ‘apostles’ that by doing this they will overtake Christ’s divinity.

Then, there appears to be much more sense in many other aspects of Christianity, including the myth about the resurrection of Jesus Christ itself.


Christians attach great importance to the chalice from which Jesus Christ was drinking during the ‘Last supper’ and into which, according to Robert from Boron, Joseph from Arimathea later collected Christ’s blood.

Christians think that the Grail has various magic powers, and, in order to make use of them, one has to drink from it – thus, in some way one has to drink the true blood of Jesus Christ.

It seems that most probably Joseph had a point in collecting Christ’s blood into a chalice, and that possibly it was used for drinking shortly after Christ’s death, and that the Christian fantasies related to wine-drinking during religious rituals are repetitions of a horrible ceremony that took place almost two thousand years ago.

Consider that the roman catholics still practice symbolic cannibalism

Even now, the Eucharist remains one of the basic rituals that maintain Christian unity. Eating together the imaginary god’s flesh can be also called ‘communion’ – metaphoric acceptance to the community of the Christians who have already performed the ritual or further acceleration of the sense of being one of the Christians.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

No. The theory of evidence is ridiculous - and you accept it without any evidence at all, and yet you automatically reject what's been witnessed by 500 people, and proven to be logically sound!
There is no logic to the resurrection. There is nothing logical about someone rising from the dead after hanging from a cross for a few days. What 500 witnesses?
And please try to keep up here. I am presenting evidence for this fictional event of yours. I am presenting you with a theory that is far more plausible than the silly one you are giving.
 
The truth can only be known on the spiritual plane not on this material plane......
What makes you think there's a spiritual plane?
 
I have given a link that discusses the possibility. Which is all you have. Proof is not really required here as we are discussing something for which there is zero evidence either way. After all you have no witnesses just a theory. So all I need is present an equally plausible theory.

And cannibalism is a fact. We know it happens and we know from primitive tribes the beliefs they held about cannibalism which would explain a lot of tosca1's questions just as well as does a resurrection. In fact it is even more plausible as cannibalism is something we know happens where as resurrections such as claimed by jesus are apparently only a one off event written in a book full of fantasy stories.
do you mind posting the link again?
 
No no. I asked for evidence. You said evidence.

Stories in a book, that’s 1000’s of years old, written by unknown authors, decades or even a 100 years or more after the events it describes, then endlessly edited and translated into hundreds of different versions doesn’t represent evidence.

Care to try again?
that is EVIDENCE, there needs to be an explanation of why Christianity rose to the greatest religion, it was set up to fail!

The Messiah of the religion was killed embarrassedly, was a carpenter which was considered a dirty occupation, the jews of the time hated Jesus, his followers were peresecuted into oblivion, what the hell happened to make it the biggest religion in the world? explain yourself
 
Why would Cassius Clay convert to Islam after not being one?
Paul was heavily against the church no matter what, something must have made him converted and made him DIE for his belief
 
The OP is flawed, so the choices are also flawed.

Those that wrote about this entire chain of events all the way up to resurrection, not a one of them met Jesus nor did they witness any of this. What are talking about was a series of stories that are neither unique nor really all that well recorded across the Bronze Age.

Christianity did not "spread so rapid" in Rome, Rome spread its control over the region very rapidly right up to its collapse. But during the time of Rome, the further conquered lands were from Rome locals generally speaking had their beliefs as it helped with local control. This was true up and to the point that the Romans decided to go another way and organized "Christianity." Almost 300 years after Jesus died it was the Romans who sought all they could get on Christianity, decided which writings were included and with plenty of others excluded, decided which of the beliefs were to be included with others excluded, made a few edits along the way, and more or less created what you hold up on Sunday as "fact."

Christianity did not spread on it's own merit, the Romans made it official to the point of direct sponsorship as official over other sets of beliefs from the period. Since Rome at one point controlled a great deal of what you call Europe today it makes sense that the concepts are still around even after the fall of Rome. Not because of authenticity of the story but because not long after the fall of Rome humanity was cursed with the Dark Ages, literal devolution in human history, filled to the brim with lunacy and stupidity, and it was dominated by the concepts the Romans gave them in "Christianity."

No one seeing the resurrection as an eyewitness does not mean much to this debate, the story existed long before Jesus anyway, and the concept was adopted to make a point about Jesus. A point that someone else already made, for some other take on God and his Son, with different names for the actors in the story, and for some other religion hundreds of years before.

What I think is we have yet another example of what religion really does, empower people to take something and make up more nonsense about it, just as you have with your OP, assuming originality and cleverness. Neither ends up true.
what other stories of Resurrection?

The fact is that Christianity was born to fail, then why did it suceed?
 
Who needs Christ when we have Trump? According to Franklin Graham Trump is comparable to Christ.

 
lol

No, Buddhism is a religion. Westerners often have a distorted picture of it, but in Asia, people worship Buddha, Maitreya, Avalokiteśvara, bodhisattvas, arhants etc the same way Christians worship Jesus, angels and saints. Monks in many nations (like Thailand and Vietnam) are holy, and must be treated with respect. They have temples, they have holidays, they have rituals, the whole 9 yards.

In Islam, Jesus is a human prophet, not a god. They reject the resurrection story and claims that he was divine; some deny he was crucified. Look it up.



"Philosophical." And it's the same thing as with Buddhism -- it's a religion, not a philosophy, replete with a pantheon, avatars, rituals, scriptures, temples, holidays and so on.

Sorry not sorry, but your attempt to minimize and misrepresent other religions is not going to fly.
no they do not worship anyone, they pay tribute to him because he is the one who made the philospipy, hinduism are myths reflecting what the culture believed, thats why there are so many gods
 
Buddhism encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on original teachings attributed to the Buddha and resulting interpreted philosophies.

Christianity encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on original teachings attributed to Jesus and resulting interpreted philosophies.

Islam encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on original teachings attributed to Mohammed and resulting interpreted philosophies.



You know, religion.
ok but Buddhism is a philospipy, not neccessarily a religion like Christianity
 
Back
Top Bottom